State v. Taylor

888 So. 2d 272 (2004)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State v. Taylor

Louisiana Court of Appeal
888 So. 2d 272 (2004)

Facts

In July of 2001, undercover agent Robin Jones attempted to buy drugs from Percy Taylor (defendant). Jones approached Taylor in a store and asked Taylor for two rocks of crack cocaine. Taylor directed Jones to meet him in another location. At that location, Jones gave Taylor money, and Taylor gave Jones two off-white rocks that later tested negative for cocaine. Jones subsequently identified Taylor from a photographic lineup as the person who sold her the alleged cocaine. The State of Louisiana (plaintiff) charged Taylor with distribution of counterfeit cocaine. Before trial, Taylor moved to exclude evidence of his 1989 conviction for possession of heroin and 1995 conviction for distribution of cocaine in case he decided to present an entrapment defense at trial. Taylor said that he understood that if he presented an entrapment defense, that is, if he showed by a preponderance of the evidence that a state agent induced him to commit the charged offense, the state would be required to show that Taylor was predisposed to commit the charged crime. However, Taylor asserted that his previous convictions were too far removed in time to have any probative value regarding whether he had a predisposition to commit the alleged crime in July of 2001. Taylor further argued that his previous offenses were not similar enough to the charged crime of knowingly and intentionally distributing counterfeit cocaine. The state argued that Taylor’s previous convictions were similar enough in character to the charged crime to be admissible to show Taylor’s predisposition to commit the offense. The trial court denied Taylor’s motion. Taylor chose not to raise an entrapment defense at trial, and the jury ultimately found Taylor guilty. Taylor appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal. On appeal, Taylor argued that the trial court’s evidentiary ruling deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Daley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership